Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[IndigoChild5559]

The problem is that the intuitive, empathic mind is far less reliable than the logical mind in discerning truth. The scientific method: testing ideas to see if they actually work in practice, is the best way we have ever found for discovering facts.

Why use a less reliable method when a more reliable one is available?

It depends on what you are trying to be reliable about. If I'm trying to determine what someone is going to do next, I will be LESS reliable if I use my analytical mind. If I want to determine whether something happening is the result of a person doing it, or just random events, it is more accurate and faster if I use my intuitive empathic mind.

 

[Polymath257]

Intuition is our social brain. It tells us instantly whether we like someone, whether they are trustworthy, and what someone is likely to do next. And although intuition is not perfect (and it works much better for some than others) it does seem to work remarkably well.

I have found just the opposite. Intuition is 'good enough' and 'fast', while deeper thought is more accurate and slower. Intuition has hellped us survive because it gives workable answers quickly. But often those answers are wrong in detail.

It takes a social brain to figure out if there is someone else out ther.

Really? That I don't think is true. It seems like the analytical brain is much, much better at that.

 

[Polymath257]

It depends on what you are trying to be reliable about. If I'm trying to determine what someone is going to do next, I will be LESS reliable if I use my analytical mind. If I want to determine whether something happening is the result of a person doing it, or just random events, it is more accurate and faster if I use my intuitive empathic mind.

And I strongly disagree here. Intuition is all about 'good enough to survive'. So it interprets motivation on the part of objects reflexively if it has a change of improving survival.

We are a social species and a big part of our brain is devoted to analyzing social behavior in others. That is why 'intuition' works well enough in many social situations. But it is quite poor once you get away from human society and into the larger world.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have had many such moments. Some of them panned out; most did not. They all felt real during the experience, but later testing showed most of them to be wrong.

Wow. Sad. I've had my share of flawed ah ha's, but I would never say that "most" of them were failures. But then again, even though my analytical skills aren't all that bad, it's my intuition that excels. Just consider me a lazy thinker -- I like connecting the dots when there are still only a few of them and being done with it. LOL.

And how do you know it isn't a case of two men with poor eyesight looking at completely different things? How do you know it isn't a case of several men with poor eyesight all looking at different things and you *thinking* they are looking at the same thing?

I know because I'm the one who made up the analogy.

 

[Polymath257]

Looking for your opinion.

I was wondering how you would address this.

I saw a argument once about the universe not following the physical laws. I actually didn't have a reply to the poster.
He said if the universe followed those laws it wouldn't be here because those laws didn't exist when the universe came into existence.
And then followed up with something like the universe created the laws, the laws didn't create the universe.

I had no response. Help me out.

I am of the opinion that it is meaningless to talk about ultimate origins for exactly this reason. The universe (potentially the multiverse) simply exists. The physical laws are are the properties of the things in the universe: their patterns of behavior.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have found just the opposite. Intuition is 'good enough' and 'fast', while deeper thought is more accurate and slower. Intuition has hellped us survive because it gives workable answers quickly. But often those answers are wrong in detail.

You can think whatever you want, but it's not what research shows. What pans out when investigated is that analytical thought does well in some situations and intuition wins out in others. Also that some people do better if they trust their analytical mind and others do better if they give greater trust to their gut feeling. And finally, it seems we are best off if we have a healthy balance of both rather than being extremely one or the other. THAT is what the research bears out.

My intuition tells me that I like you. I formed that opinion within the first day of posting with you, and it has borne out over time. Analytical though totally stinks at determining who you will like and who you won't.

 

[Polymath257]

Wow. Sad. I've had my share of flawed ah ha's, but I would never say that "most" of them were failures. But then again, even though my analytical skills aren't all that bad, it's my intuition that excels. Just consider me a lazy thinker -- I like connecting the dots when there are still only a few of them and being done with it. LOL.

Laziness has its virtues. But if the search is for truth, intuition fails far too often to be really useful. Much of reality is counter-intuitive.

I know because I'm the one who made up the analogy.

I am continuing the analogy. In the case of religion, you are suggesting we are like the seven blind men and the elephant. I get that. But, based only on the testimony of the seven blind men, why would you think there is an elephant? How do you know that they are experiencing the same thing 'in reality'?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And I strongly disagree here. Intuition is all about 'good enough to survive'. So it interprets motivation on the part of objects reflexively if it has a change of improving survival.

We are a social species and a big part of our brain is devoted to analyzing social behavior in others. That is why 'intuition' works well enough in many social situations. But it is quite poor once you get away from human society and into the larger world.

It may be about "good enough to survive," but it is STILL better than analysis in certain areas.

Sorry, but I don't think you get away from the need for intuition that easily.

 

[Polymath257]

You can think whatever you want, but it's not what research shows. What pans out when investigated is that analytical thought does well in some situations and intuition wins out in others. Also that some people do better if they trust their analytical mind and others do better if they give greater trust to their gut feeling. And finally, it seems we are best off if we have a healthy balance of both rather than being extremely one or the other. THAT is what the research bears out.

Yes, intuition is very good for quick decisions that are only required to be 'good enough' for survival.

My intuition tells me that I like you. I formed that opinion within the first day of posting with you, and it has borne out over time. Analytical though totally stinks at determining who you will like and who you won't.

Thanks. And I would agree. Who you get along with, who you like, who you love, are not based on lists of positive and negative attributes.

 

[Polymath257]

It may be about "good enough to survive," but it is STILL better than analysis in certain areas.

For quick decisions, mostly.

 

[Audie]

Absolutely.

First, the soft sciences have been investigating it for a while now, since psychology had to know whether religious or mystical experiences were part of a mental defect or not, iow whether mystics needed treatment. The consensus is that they are not only not defects, but are on the whole quite healthy.

But now we have our behavioral biologists and those in similar fields getting involved with pinning down the interplay between religious experiences and MRI mapping and the like. I try to stay on top of the latest news, but I usually forget the fine details after a couple of days, and only hang on to the larger points.

Why does it surprise you that research is being done into religious/mystical experiences?

Why do you think I am surprised?
i should have been specific. What is a
religious experience?

Of course, things like meditation have been
studied.

People do many things under the heading of
religious experience.

 

[Polymath257]

It may be about "good enough to survive," but it is STILL better than analysis in certain areas.

Sorry, but I don't think you get away from the need for intuition that easily.

Oh, I don't think it is something that needs to be gotten away from. It is useful in its domain: getting quick answers that are 'good enough'. It excels at that.

But I want the deeper answers, not the 'good enough' ones. And that takes switching to the analytical side and *testing* all those intuitions to see if they really work past just 'good enough'.

The truth is harder to find than intuition alone allows.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why do you think I am surprised?
i should have been specific. What is a
religious experience?

Of course, things like meditation have been
studied.

People do many things under the heading of
religious experience.

Different scholars will nuance the religious/mystical experience a little differently. I prefer to use the description of William James, because it dovetails neatly with my own experiences. Here are his four descriptors:

1. Ineffability - The experience simply can't be put into words. The harder one tries, the worse one fails. "The Tao which can be expressed it not the immortal Tao.
2. Noetic Quality - You come away from the experience feeling as though you have learned some deep and important knowledge (even if you have a hard time putting your finger on it), and that it has tremendous authority.
3. Transiency - It just doesn't last very long.
4. Passivity - Although you can do things that increase the possibility of such an experience, once it starts, it is as if your will has been set aside, that you are being carried away by something greater than yourself. It is no longer you that is doing the doing. You are basically just "along for the ride."


Each scientific researcher spells out specifically what they mean. For example, one researcher may do brain scans while his subjects are praying, or listening to religious psalms.

 

[metis]

Yes, I consider the existence of a deity to be essentially equivalent in evidence to that of blue fairies and invisible pink unicorns.

Thus the "smug arrogance" that I mentioned all too many atheists have that implies that any form of theism is strictly imaginary and delusional. You have well established my point, so at least thanks for that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh, I don't think it is something that needs to be gotten away from. It is useful in its domain: getting quick answers that are 'good enough'. It excels at that.

But I want the deeper answers, not the 'good enough' ones. And that takes switching to the analytical side and *testing* all those intuitions to see if they really work past just 'good enough'.

The truth is harder to find than intuition alone allows.

Journal article, translated into English:
Intuition and wisdom in decision making

Intuition and wisdom in decision making

1. INTRODUCTION

It is currently admitted that we are not as rational as once we supposed to be, and intuition is frequently used in decision-making. Intuition often proves itself a better counselor in decision-making than rational arguments or lengthy analyses. This occurs mainly in dubious, highly uncertain situations, within high uncertainty. The authors’ experiences have shown that when we let rationality prevail over intuition, we frequently have regretted the outcomes. Learning acquired during our life gives us good advice. According Marius Usher (2016) , professor at the University of Tel Aviv, intuition is reliable. The conclusion reached by a group of scientists led by him argues that reasoning is less successful than intuition or instinctive reactions. Scientific studies have confirmed that in 90% of cases, intuition has proved more reliable. “We cannot find enough reasons to trust, even if our intuition tells us that we should act differently” ( Usher, 2016 , p. 113).

 

[Polymath257]

Thus the "smug arrogance" that I mentioned all too many atheists have that implies that any form of theism is strictly imaginary and delusional. You have well established my point, so at least thanks for that.

I am more than willing to look at any evidence you have for a deity that goes beyond that for blue fairies or invisible pink unicorns.

Do you have any? Or will you simply point to the universe around us and claim it is evidence for your particular deity?

 

[metis]

1. In regards to the theists, where do you rank those who have not had some experience but instead rely on unexamined tradition?

I'm really not much into "tradition" because it can also be wrong-headed. To me, accepting something exclusively based on just tradition forms what I call a "blind faith", although people do have that right to have that.

That’s true. I don’t know for certain. But I’m okay with that. I think there are very few things that we know for certain anyway. I think most of our world views are simply beliefs based on our best currently available evidence. And that’s what my atheism is— a belief that gods don’t exist based on the currently available evidence.

I can very much accept that, and if you read "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts you'll see that we ain't that far apart. I can explain if needed.

But beliefs aren’t set in stone. You and I have experienced that with our changing beliefs. If at any point I do feel that convincing evidence is obtained, I can change my belief. I can admit I was wrong at that point. But until then, I feel that my current belief accurately represents reality as best as I can figure.

And I can also fully accept that.

As for myself, I went from being quite agnostic to at least becoming somewhat of a theist based on a series of experiences over almost three years that just blew my mind in ways I could never have anticipated. However, I'm not going to cover the specifics because it would take way too much time. I did write about it here a couple of years ago, and it took around two or three very lengthy posts, and there has been one major event along that line since then. Unfortunately, as you well know, when one question gets answered more questions often tend to arise, so that lengthy series of events still boggles my mind because I still cannot connect 100% of the dots. .

 

[metis]

Doesn't the process of sharing incomplete, or miscomprehended information seem a bit illogical from the get-go?

In science, we do that all the time through peer review because none of us have "the final answer" on much of anything. Same is true with most theologians.

But science doesn't serve so that parties can speak to having 100% certainty. This isn't what it is about. It's about being able to model an aspect of reality, to the point that our models and descriptions (using the best information we currently have) allow for consistent prediction and for us to get the most utility out of that aspect of reality that we can. Science never claims it is going to provide the picture in "black & white." Perhaps this is a point of some misunderstanding on your part?

Again, we're dealing with degrees of knowledge, and I certainly am not claiming any infallibility here. Matter of fact, I have far more questions than answers.

What I am not doing is telling people what they must believe, and no where along the line have I insisted that I have "the answers". The word "belief" is not synonymous with the word "fact", but some seem to all too often forget that, imo, whether they be atheists or theists or whateverists.

Nor do I see things in terms of "black & white", and here's where any good scientist and any good theologian will converge and agree. In Judaism, to use an example, the Talmud attempts to clarify areas that may not be clear in regards to Jewish Law based on the Tanakh, but it's generally agreed that it also may not bat 1000.

To end this post, I'll cite Augustine who, when asked if he knew what the important answers to faith were, responded that he wasn't even too sure what the questions were. I think almost all of us here at RF realize that we don't have all "the answers" even in one area, and yet we share what we do know or think we know, and I don't have a problem with that.

 

[metis]

I am more than willing to look at any evidence you have for a deity that goes beyond that for blue fairies or invisible pink unicorns.

Do you have any? Or will you simply point to the universe around us and claim it is evidence for your particular deity?

Frankly, I'm not at all interested as you've entered this discussion with a huge chip on your shoulder based on know-it-all-ism. I have clearly not avoided real inquiries from others, but yours is simply not within that vein.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Intuition is our social brain. It tells us instantly whether we like someone, whether they are trustworthy, and what someone is likely to do next. And although intuition is not perfect (and it works much better for some than others) it does seem to work remarkably well.

It takes a social brain to figure out if there is someone else out ther.

This makes no sense to me, considering the subject of discussion.